Evaluation Principles
1) Articles that have not been previously published or are not currently under review for publication in another journal and have been approved by each author will be accepted for evaluation.
2) Submitted articles that pass the preliminary review will be screened for plagiarism using the intihal.net or Turnitin software.
3) Our journal conducts a double-blind peer review process. All submissions will first be evaluated by the editor for suitability for the journal. Articles deemed suitable will be sent to at least two independent expert reviewers to evaluate the scientific quality of the article.
4) The editor evaluates articles independently of the authors' ethnic origin, gender, nationality, religious beliefs, and political philosophy. The editor ensures that manuscripts submitted for publication undergo a fair double-blind peer review process.
5) The editor does not allow conflicts of interest between authors, editors, and reviewers.
6) Editors do not participate in decisions regarding manuscripts written by themselves, their family members, or colleagues, or manuscripts related to products or services in which the editor has an interest. Any such submission is subject to the journal's standard procedures.
7) Reviewers should report any suspected research or publication misconduct to the Editor. The Editor is responsible for taking appropriate action in accordance with COPE guidelines.
8) Reviewers are given 6 weeks to complete the review process for our journal. This period may be extended by an additional 2 weeks.
9) The article review process in our journal takes an average of 10-12 weeks. Depending on the responses received from reviewers, this period may occasionally be extended beyond the desired timeframe. Articles that cannot be published due to this unavoidable situation are transferred to the next issue, provided that the process continues, and the author is notified of the situation.

Article Review Processes
Blind Review and Evaluation Process All works submitted to IEFD are evaluated through a double-blind editorial review process according to the stages outlined below. In the double-blind method, the identities of the authors and reviewers are concealed. For this reason, authors are requested to remove their names when uploading their articles to the system.
All manuscripts undergo an editorial review process. The editorial review process takes at least 15 days for each manuscript, although this may vary depending on the length of the manuscript and transliteration requirements.

A. Initial Review Process
Submissions to IEFD are first evaluated by the editor. At this stage, submissions that do not comply with the journal's purpose and scope, are weak in terms of Turkish, English, and Arabic language and expression rules, contain critical scientific errors, lack original value, or do not meet publication policies are rejected. Authors of rejected submissions are notified within one month of the submission date at the latest. Manuscripts deemed suitable are then sent to a field editor relevant to the field of the manuscript for preliminary evaluation.

B. Preliminary Evaluation Process
During the preliminary evaluation process, field editors thoroughly review the introduction and literature, methods, findings, conclusions, evaluation, and discussion sections of the manuscripts in terms of the journal's publication policies, scope, and originality. Manuscripts deemed unsuitable as a result of this review are returned within one month at the latest, along with the field editor's evaluation report. Suitable manuscripts are then entered into the referee assignment process.
The editorial board conducts a preliminary evaluation of incoming manuscripts according to the above criteria.
No detailed report is provided for manuscripts that are returned or rejected as a result of the preliminary evaluation.
If the article successfully passes the preliminary evaluation, it is accepted into the peer review process.
As a result of the preliminary evaluation, the Editorial Board decides whether the article is suitable for peer review.
An article that does not meet the minimum requirements in terms of the criteria in question is rejected by the Editorial Board without peer review.

C. Referee Assignment Process
Referees are assigned based on the content of the work and their areas of expertise. The field editor reviewing the work proposes at least two referees from the referee pool based on their areas of expertise or may propose new referees suitable for the field of the work. The editor evaluates the referee suggestions received from the field editor and forwards the studies to the referees. Referees must guarantee that they will not share any process or document related to the studies they evaluate.

D. Referee Evaluation Process
Referees are given 6 weeks for the referee evaluation process. Authors must complete any revision suggestions from referees or editors within 1 month, in accordance with the “revision guidelines.” Referees can decide on the suitability of a paper's revisions after reviewing them and may request revisions multiple times if necessary. The decision to publish an article is made based on the positive evaluations of at least two referees. If one referee gives a positive opinion and another gives a negative opinion, the article is sent to a third referee. Referee Reports Referee evaluations are generally based on the originality of the work, the methods used, compliance with ethical rules, the consistent presentation of findings and results, and the literature. This review is conducted according to the following elements:
a. Introduction and literature: The evaluation report includes opinions on the presentation and objectives of the problem addressed in the study, the importance of the topic, the scope and currency of the relevant literature, the originality of the study, and the consistency of the title, abstract, and article content.
b. Method: The evaluation report includes opinions on the appropriateness of the method used, the selection and characteristics of the research group, information related to validity and reliability, as well as the data collection and analysis process.
c. Findings: The evaluation report includes opinions on the presentation of findings obtained within the framework of the method, the accuracy of the analysis methods, the consistency of the findings achieved with the objectives of the research, the provision of necessary tables, figures, and visuals, and the conceptual evaluation of the tests used.
d. Conclusions and recommendations: The evaluation report includes opinions on the contribution to the literature, recommendations for future studies, and applications in the field.
e. Style and presentation: The evaluation report also includes opinions on the coverage of the study title, the correct use of Turkish, and the provision of citations and references in accordance with APA 6 rules and the language of the full text.
f. Overall evaluation: The evaluation report includes opinions on the originality of the study as a whole and its contribution to the educational literature and applications in the field. During the evaluation process, reviewers are not expected to make corrections based on the typographical features of the study.

E. Decision and Publication Process
Studies that have completed the referee process are evaluated by the Editorial Board, and a decision on whether to publish them is made by majority vote. The final authority on the publication of articles rests with the Editorial Board. Studies decided to be published are prepared for publication by completing typesetting and layout processes and are published in the next issue. The average number of weeks between article submission and publication (review and publication process) can be 10/12 weeks.

Responsibilities of Stakeholders

1. Responsibilities of Authors
• Ensure that the article is original, unique, and has not been published before.
• Ensure that all authors have made a meaningful contribution to the research.
• Submit ethics committee approval, permission documents, and conflict of interest statements.
• Conceal identity, institutional, or author information in the article file to protect the blind review process.
• Respond to referee reports respectfully, clearly, and in a timely manner.
• Refrain from submitting the article to other journals while the review process is ongoing.

2. Responsibilities of Reviewers
• Conduct impartial, confidential, and constructive evaluations.
• Assess the academic quality, originality, methodological soundness, and contribution to the field of the work.
• Refrain from using information obtained during the evaluation process for personal or academic gain.
• Withdraw from reviewing if there is a conflict of interest by informing the journal editor.
• Complete the report within the given time frame; if this is not possible, inform the editor immediately.

3. Editors' Responsibilities
• Assign referees objectively based on their area of expertise.
• Protect the confidentiality of referee and author identities.
• Follow COPE flowcharts in cases of conflict of interest, ethical violations, or suspected plagiarism during the refereeing process.
• Monitor the quality of referee reports and appoint new referees when necessary.
• Prevent external interference (from authors, institutions, sponsors, etc.) in the refereeing process.

NOTE: Click here to view statistics related to our journal's evaluation and publication processes.